Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 8, 2008

Aliens of London (Doctor Who) → Aliens of London[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unusually, I'm putting this redirect up because I think it should be kept. Edokter deleted it twice, despite a relatively longstanding guideline at WP:TV-NC that recommended that such redirects be created and kept. I've given some of the history and justifications for keeping redirects of this sort at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Redirects. I invite editors who deal with redirects on a regular basis to join that conversation, to determine the fate of redirects of this sort. (In short: we name TV episode articles by the standard Wikipedia rule "disambiguate only when necessary", but we also create redirects with "unnecessary" disambiguators for the ease of readers looking for articles.) Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I feel it is simply unnecessary disambiguation to an unambigous title. New readers are unlikely to search with a (xxx episode) as a suffix. The new searchbox also has no need for these redirects, as these only pollute the list of suggestions with redirects pointing to the same article. In short, unambigous titles should not have ambigous redirects. — Edokter • Talk • 18:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects are cheap. There's no reason to get rid of a redirect which might potentially be useful. Especially with these TV episodes, sometimes it's tricky to know if one should link to the title, or the title plus the disambig. Which doesn't mean that every episode has to have these extra disambig redirects, but if one's created, it's not worth the fuss to delete it. See also WP:REDIRECT#CRD. --Elonka 19:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But not free. More redirects mean more to keep track of. And linking should actually be easier, as a red link will tell you instantly that the link is wrong, which in turn encourages proper linking. — Edokter • Talk • 20:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A redlink also causes frustration and wasted time, as it's necessary to track down the "correct" link just to get things to turn blue. And to be honest, when I'm writing an article, if my "first guess" for a link turns out to be red, rather than just fixing the link, I'm inclined to fix it and create a redirect at the same time, since if I guessed wrong on a link once, I and/or others are likely to do it again. --Elonka 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep foreseeable search item, and in this case, the cost of deletion could very well be greater than the cost of keeping. Is it a confusing redirect? No... Is it an implausible typo that diminishes its value as a search item? No... Does its inclusion aid accidental linking? Yes, as it is quite likely that someone could otherwise attempt to write a duplicate article for the TV episode with this title. Reading WP:RfD#KEEP and WP:RfD#DELETE, I am much more pursuaded by the "keep" arguments than the (much rarer) "delete" arguments here (and up top). 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Elonka. Just today I was looking for a song and went straight to it by using "<title> (song)" without using the search box etc. I see the housekeeping aspect, but it really doesn't seem to be a problem. Verbal chat 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since people who don't know our naming conventions will often assume certain standardized formats that aren't always used. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Day of the Clown → The Day of the Clown[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap, but not free, and the is a wildfire of redirects growing that is unnecessary. One of such is this one, which is an episode title. The episode has the unambigous name "The Day of the Clown". The redirect is simply incorrect and will likewise encourage linking to the incorrect title. — Edokter • Talk • 17:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Reliable sources reported the episode title as "Day of the Clown" before the episode's actual airing revealed the correct title. Furthermore, the addition or subtraction of the definite article is a plausible mistake for a reader to make when searching for a title. If we had an article for some other subject titled "Day of the Clown", we would have a disambiguating hatnote at the head of it pointing to The Day of the Clown. Since we don't, we should keep the redirect. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless redirect, someome might indeed forget "The". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NC is a bit ambiguous on the naming convention for an article of a television episode or series. Keeping this in mind, it is most highly likely that a Wikipedia reader would omit the definite article in his/her/its search. In addition, if the name of the redirect were indeed mentioned in reliable sources for the episode before someone changed the name, the redirect should be left behind as a plausible search term as well. 147.70.242.40 (talk), temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a plausible redirect, that is not doing any harm. --Elonka 13:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible search. Tim! (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Josiah Rowe and similar examples such as Day of the Triffids and (alternatively) The Return of the Jedi - these are common search mistakes Stephenb (Talk) 18:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Brockley CC → List of English cricket clubs[edit]

The result of the debate was Redirect to Brockley, Suffolk. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original arcticle reduced to a redirect instead of being deleted as a non-notable local cricket team. Target article has been cleaned up and is now no longer directly relevant to the subject. bigissue (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

John Allan (1747-1805) → John Allan (colonel)[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a wikilink to the subject's name with the year of birth and date of death is a good idea. I think we should delete it. Nothing of importance points to it yet. Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as premature and potentially confusing. I can see disambiguating on the basis of birth and death years only if there is no other basis available for disambiguation (such as contemporary artists or baseball players with the same name). 147.70.242.40 (talk), temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page was created at John Allan (1747-1805) but I moved it to the more appropriate colonel. I see no need for this redirect to continue; no actual articles link to the old title. Boleyn (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any inbound links to Wikipedia pointing to the article? If there's a chance that there are then keep. JASpencer (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As already pinted out above, this hasn't been created to disambiguate. The article was around under that title for two years so there are also possible links from outside wikipedia to consider. So it seems to be a case to keep the redirect around as helping to document a page move.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tikiwont--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:User Nu Metal → User:Chanakal/Userbox/Nu Metal[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, R2 by Stifle. Lenticel (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no links to the redirect page, besides only two users using target userbox one is me chanakal (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Template:Nu Metal
  • Delete - cross-namespace redirect into userspace. As originator of the original redirect, nom could ask for speedy deletion, CSD G7. 147.70.242.40 (talk), temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's incorrect, it's only a speedy if it's from the article space. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep because redirects are cheap, but I don't feel strongly about it. Consider me neutral. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cross-namespace redirect into userspace. I reread CSD R2 and it does say from article space. I messed up in requesting speedy deletion for the redirect. I opened a thread on this. -- Suntag ☼ 17:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've speedied this as R2 although it also qualified as G7; if anyone objects let me know. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Toonami's TOM hosts and SARA hHosts → Toonami glossary[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete, I'll consider this as an unchallegened deletion. Lenticel (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old redirect (created in Oct. 2007) that includes a typo. It has no significant page history, and no article links to this one. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_8&oldid=1138576338"